I'm not sure about 07 but James Allen used to publish the fuel data in either 08 or 09 I believe. You need the amount of fuel it takes to complete a lap,what that weight penalty means around that track and then what lap they pitted on. Here's an example of what the BBC typically did in 2009..http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/f1mole/2009/ ... bahra.html

That only really determines a minimum amount of fuel though, doesn't it? They might have pitted before the car was empty for strategic reasons.

I don't think it's an exact science but teams did tend to run the car dry though as that's when it was at its quickest and you didn't want to not have a low fuel run during the race but yeah if they got stuck or something happened then it could change I imagine but not too early or you might have to stop again if you now can't carry enough to make it to the end and you were on a one-stopper.

Nobody stopped earlier because after you re-fuelled you would be up to 3 seconds a lap slower.

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

Info from the team maybe? Alternate weekends?

Pass.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I'm not sure about 07 but James Allen used to publish the fuel data in either 08 or 09 I believe. You need the amount of fuel it takes to complete a lap,what that weight penalty means around that track and then what lap they pitted on. Here's an example of what the BBC typically did in 2009..http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/f1mole/2009/ ... bahra.html

That only really determines a minimum amount of fuel though, doesn't it? They might have pitted before the car was empty for strategic reasons.

I don't think it's an exact science but teams did tend to run the car dry though as that's when it was at its quickest and you didn't want to not have a low fuel run during the race but yeah if they got stuck or something happened then it could change I imagine but not too early or you might have to stop again if you now can't carry enough to make it to the end and you were on a one-stopper.

Nobody stopped earlier because after you re-fuelled you would be up to 3 seconds a lap slower.

That only really determines a minimum amount of fuel though, doesn't it? They might have pitted before the car was empty for strategic reasons.

I don't think it's an exact science but teams did tend to run the car dry though as that's when it was at its quickest and you didn't want to not have a low fuel run during the race but yeah if they got stuck or something happened then it could change I imagine but not too early or you might have to stop again if you now can't carry enough to make it to the end and you were on a one-stopper.

Nobody stopped earlier because after you re-fuelled you would be up to 3 seconds a lap slower.

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

Info from the team maybe? Alternate weekends?

Pass.

That makes no sense it's a performance disadvantage to carry more fuel then you need to.

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

That only really determines a minimum amount of fuel though, doesn't it? They might have pitted before the car was empty for strategic reasons.

Nobody stopped earlier because after you re-fuelled you would be up to 3 seconds a lap slower.

I'm sure I've read accounts of people making an earlier stop and not filling up entirely, making the stop faster because they were already carrying some fuel. I'll see if I can dig anything up later, but I have a distinct memory of reading that at least once.

I mean, you could make the same statement about modern F1: Nobody goes longer because you'll be 3 seconds a lap slower due to tyre wear. But people still do it for strategic reasons, and I'm sure they did the inverse back in the refueling era.

I don't think it's an exact science but teams did tend to run the car dry though as that's when it was at its quickest and you didn't want to not have a low fuel run during the race but yeah if they got stuck or something happened then it could change I imagine but not too early or you might have to stop again if you now can't carry enough to make it to the end and you were on a one-stopper.

Nobody stopped earlier because after you re-fuelled you would be up to 3 seconds a lap slower.

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

Info from the team maybe? Alternate weekends?

Pass.

That makes no sense it's a performance disadvantage to carry more fuel then you need to.

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

Info from the team maybe? Alternate weekends?

Pass.

That makes no sense it's a performance disadvantage to carry more fuel then you need to.

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

That makes no sense it's a performance disadvantage to carry more fuel then you need to.

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

That makes no sense it's a performance disadvantage to carry more fuel then you need to.

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Just checked and they didn't even stop at the same time in China so if anyone's results should be called into question it's your own poker. Brazil they stopped together but I'm not going to check the others, I'm happy to believe Mark Hughes until shown a good reason to do otherwise.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I've no idea what they or Mark Hughes did. What two are causing you grief specifically here, I'm a bit lost as to what the issue is?

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

Mark Hughes has actually not revealed any data, fuel loads were not known before the race and only known when drivers did their first pit stop, what he actually reveals is very vague and it seems his figures rely on Alonso carrying more fuel than Hamilton.

In the early part of the season when Alonso was clearly being favoured, Hamilton carried more fuel than Alonso in 4 of the 5 races, going forward from that would Alonso go along with carrying more fuel and disadvantaging himself in qualifying, it just doesn't add up.

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Ask him, I've still no idea what specific weekends you feel there is an issue and I can't be bothered doing your legwork for you. (What race,who won quali,who's turn it was for q preference,what did Mark give,what did you give etc..)

Without all that I don't know what to say and I'm not prepared to work it all out from the list you gave citing just the pit stops. If you want a conversation, for the second time, give the specifics, I'm not doing your work for you. You haven't even said which two they stopped at the same time as if I'm supposed to know immediately what two races are missing from the list from 11 years ago,who actually won the q,who's turn it was for fuel preference..etc

Specifics if you want a convo, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not doing your work for you.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

All of these are 0.0 numbers, and I honestly don't believe a qualifying gap average is accurate to more than one decimal place. All you and Hughes are collectively doing is proving that the gap between Alonso and Hamilton was effectively nothing in 2007, since the margin for error - whether you're the one making the error or Hughes, either way - is clearly at least half a tenth anyway.

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

Didn't Hughes mention that he collected data from the teams themselves? In which case his would likely involve a lot less guesswork than yours, so is more likely to be accurate

Mark Hughes listed the 14 races that he used so I just assumed that would be obvious.

All the fuel corrected qualifying sessions that have either Alonso on top or Hamilton on top correspond to mine it's just the actual end result that seems to be a lot different.

Looking through his methodology I have to covert my figures to % differences and double check some other things as well, I remember comparing the % difference before and it made only 0.01s difference.

What I need to do will take a fair bit of time including posting on here so I need to make the time available at some point.

I have a feeling that when I've done all this the question I will be asking is what happened to all this extra fuel that Alonso supposedly was carrying?

So if they all correspond but the result then why do you keep insinuating he's favoring Alonso instead of questioning your own work or at the very least take the trouble to convert each result to a % like he does first instead of throwing around bias allegations straight away. Do you use one constant figure to work out the fuel correction or do you have a figure for the differing demands of each track that could influence fuel usage as I'm sure he has?

You mentioned two that they stopped on the same lap and wondered why Hughes ascertains Alonso carried more fuel. This is where the confusion lay as you didn't say what two and I shouldn't have to go back and work out what those two were, it's been pointed out before several times what appalling forum etiquette you have but in the interest of actually getting somewhere I did go and check and I see Brazil was one of the two you couldn't bring yourself to write.

That'll be the Brazil where Lewis changed strategy during the race,won the Q in the session and indeed was given that Q fuel corrected by Hughes anyway (You know, that obvious list you mention)

So what's the problem there? Who did you give it to and why do you seem to think Alonso was carrying more fuel and Hughes is favoring him by thinking so when he gave it to Lewis? Or do you now accept this result considering you are now saying they all correspond?

The other one is China where Ron himself said in amongst the tyre pressure allegations that Alonso carried more fuel but only a couple of tenths worth, but which again Hughes gives to Hamilton fuel corrected anyway. (I don't think he does tyre pressure corrections )

Sort your argument out. In case you've forgotten...

pokerman wrote:

The other 2 races he uses they stopped on the same lap, I'm curious how Hughes ascertains that Alonso carried more fuel than Hamilton?

...In short, he doesn't.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

True, but in this particular thread we could be talking about Alonso's chances in WEC, or whether he might finally have a half decent car at McLaren, not whether he was faster than Hamilton, fuel adjusted, 11 years ago.

True, but in this particular thread we could be talking about Alonso's chances in WEC, or whether he might finally have a half decent car at McLaren, not whether he was faster than Hamilton, fuel adjusted, 11 years ago.

You can talk about all of that if you want to, no-one's stopping those things being discussed. More likely no-one says anything and the thread falls back to page 4 or whatever.

As for this exchange about the fuel adjustments, granted it's a long time ago but the article isn't,it was new and it concerns Alonso so seems fair game to me but happy to take it elsewhere if a mod feels differently and splits it off into it's own thread.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

The Russian unofficial McLaren site has the information.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

The China one is a puzzle unless it was said at the time that Hamilton pitted because his wets were worn so I reasoned he pitted because of the tyres rather than the fuel but I take on board this needs to be altered now.

Alonso carrying more fuel is a generalisation of the season were Hughes states that the official stats that have Hamilton ahead are wrong because it doesn't take into account fuel adjusted times.

I do have a list of tracks with the time lost per lap of fuel so I can make the calculations, at the time I made the fuel adjustment calculation I didn't have the list so I averaged out 1 lap of fuel equals 0.1s, I think I actually obtained the list a year later were I saw that the overall average is more like 0.08s.

My average had Hamilton 0.069s ahead whereas Hughes has Alonso 0.016s ahead which is quite a big difference, also I have seen other people making these calculations which are very similar to mine which is why I questioned Hughes figures in the first place.

I will work all this out and I will post it perhaps tomorrow when I should have the time to do it.

For China-I thought you said they never pit while still carrying fuel when talking to Exediron?

Alonso carrying more fuel is your own generalisation, Hughes is talking about the official results as in 10-7 to Lewis doesn't take into account fuel correction rather than any official avg. gap not taking it into account. There is no "official" avg. gap as far as I know but officially Lewis won 10-7. (His fuel adjusted score being 7-7).

An avg fuel penalty across the year of only 0.08 sounds way way to low. One of the links I shared shows Bahrain as being worth 0.035 per kg with fuel consumption being 2.6kg per lap in 2009 (BBC) . This F1 fanatic one for 2016 cars shows time penalty of 0.054 at 1.7kg per lap. https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informat ... nformation

We really need 2007/8 era estimates and I can't find any unfortunately.

Like I said James Allen also had Alonso marginally quicker at the time on his ITV forum (No idea if it was as a % though, last time I looked for it there was only a dead link) so Hughes isn't saying anything new. I'd bet my last buck there is just a difference in fuel correction calculations between you and I'd trust theirs more tbh as he states...

Mark Hughes wrote:

A mix of all of those, Anthony. For fuel effect calculations, my own data from the time, collected from the teams.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

The Russian unofficial McLaren site has the information.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

What complaint? (Or do you mean from Gingerfurball?)

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

The Russian unofficial McLaren site has the information.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

What complaint? (Or do you mean from Gingerfurball?)

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

Regarding China this was over 10 years ago so I can't remember why I did it, I didn't make notes because it was just for my own personal use, so I'm guessing it was because his wet tyres were badly worn which can lose performance faster than dry tyres which hardly degraded, and he got brought in early, you yourself mentioned that Dennis said Alonso lost 2 tenths in qualifying which equates to 2 laps of fuel but Hamilton came in 3 laps before Alonso so it sounds like he did come in early which basically might have threw me out then?

The number after the equals signs is the lap time per lap of fuel calculated by dividing the top number by 10 and then multiplying by the bottom number, the average is 0.085s so yes it is that low.

I've gone through it all and the more accurate fuel calculation plus using % differences for track lengths alters very little it just makes Hamilton 0.007s quicker than my initial calculations.

The only difference is leaving out the 3 races which Hughes did which benefited Hamilton 2-1 and the China readjustment which gives Alonso an extra 0.334s, then I have it as Hamilton being 0.034s quicker overall as opposed to Hughes having Alonso 0.016s quicker.

Apart from that am I lead to believe that for some reason Hamilton ran his car lower on fuel in the races than Alonso because Alonso has 8 laps of fuel not used which basically equates to over 20 seconds of lost performance in the races which just wasn't the way to go racing.

I could reveal all the data, the qualifying times are easy to check, when the drivers stopped for their first pit stops perhaps not as easy but I feel it's sort of wasting my time because Hughes will be very much the one to be right despite him not actually supplying any hard data.

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

The Russian unofficial McLaren site has the information.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

What complaint? (Or do you mean from Gingerfurball?)

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

With China I'm just highlighting why talking in absolutes doesn't work. In the post I mentioned it's possible for strat reasons to stop earlier you replied nobody stopped earlier but then you mentioned China and assuming stopping was tyre related instead. You see how frustrating that is? You yourself had an example of what you thought was someone stopping while still carrying fuel yet you have to tell everyone in absolutes that nobody did it. (I got the Ron quote from here.. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/63448 ... azilian-gp 4th from last question, James Allen about the tyre pressures)

Anyway I do appreciate you showing your figures but it raises a couple of questions, they don't match the BBC one from 09 so are they from 07/8 cars,yeah? Also you mention it might not be easy to provide when they first stopped so can I ask how you worked it out then? Can I assume you haven't double checked the others after being out in China by 3 laps but correct about Brazil from your own notes? Small differences could lie there perhaps. To find the China and Brazil one I googled F1 China(Or Brazil) 2007,BBC as it happened,for what it's worth.

Either way I still think it will be a small difference in the calculations rather than assuming one was carrying more or less fuel to that extent. It doesn't take much to be out to get a 0.050s swing does it. As Exediron mentions, it just highlights how close they were really but yes I'd obviously favour Hughes's figures as they are from data from the teams. He also mentions only using comparable laps not necessarily their last in Q3 so there could also be something there where you're using different gaps but yeah without his info there's not a lot else to say as without it I can only guess where the differences lay.

He does answer questions in his comments section though.

The Russian unofficial McLaren site has the information.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

What complaint? (Or do you mean from Gingerfurball?)

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

0.15s or 0.15% is a relatively big difference in F1 terms and again the 2015 season figures are being used when the cars were free from issues this let's not forget being policed by Hughes himself and I think are quite accurate in terms of qualifying times, the races themselves you either leave to Hughes or are then just left to long subjective arguments with Alonso's penchant for retiring healthy cars when running both out of the points and behind Button, but I digress a bit.

Rosberg was in a lose/lose situation with Schumacher everyone thought that Rosberg would get smashed, when initially the opposite happened then Schumacher got written off as being too old and Rosberg got no credit.

We can see using Hamilton as a constant then Button and Rosberg were quite closely matched althoughthey had different strengths, I would edge it to Rosberg because qualifying is such a big advantage to have.

If you want to throw Trulli in the mix who I think was weaker anyway, he was terrible in the wet for instance, then Alonso has 4 years of Trulli and Button whilst Hamilton has 7 years of Rosberg and Button.

I know you've already conceded that Hamilton has had tougher teammates, I just thought I would extrapolate a bit more.

If Hughes has all the relevant data then after 2007 it greatly favours Hamilton in respect to my data and has Hamilton far more competitive against Button than what Alonso was which sort of goes against quite a few view points on here.

Strange to see a complaint about the discussion of Hughes' article about Alonso.

What complaint? (Or do you mean from Gingerfurball?)

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

0.15s or 0.15% is a relatively big difference in F1 terms and again the 2015 season figures are being used when the cars were free from issues this let's not forget being policed by Hughes himself and I think are quite accurate in terms of qualifying times, the races themselves you either leave to Hughes or are then just left to long subjective arguments with Alonso's penchant for retiring healthy cars when running both out of the points and behind Button, but I digress a bit.

Rosberg was in a lose/lose situation with Schumacher everyone thought that Rosberg would get smashed, when initially the opposite happened then Schumacher got written off as being too old and Rosberg got no credit.

We can see using Hamilton as a constant then Button and Rosberg were quite closely matched althoughthey had different strengths, I would edge it to Rosberg because qualifying is such a big advantage to have.

If you want to throw Trulli in the mix who I think was weaker anyway, he was terrible in the wet for instance, then Alonso has 4 years of Trulli and Button whilst Hamilton has 7 years of Rosberg and Button.

I know you've already conceded that Hamilton has had tougher teammates, I just thought I would extrapolate a bit more.

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I wouldn't know what sessions Hughes disallowed in the Button-Alonso 2015 one of course but I'm happy enough to go with it. I believe we (You and I) only really differed on using Monaco from that year which from Hughes's own description of using previous clear runs I assume he did the same thing as you and gave it to Button based on Q1.

I disagree using that technique as there's never a guarantee of both going flat out but I'm not going to stress about it. Some context though is Alonso was new to the team and in a crap shoot reliability-wise in 2015 so it makes sense an embedded Lewis did slightly better against JB with him being the newb this time and in a very good car.

Happy to concede that, (unless Hughes gives more info I can get my teeth into of course but in absence of that I'm happy to say Lewis did slightly better against JB overall).

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

0.15s or 0.15% is a relatively big difference in F1 terms and again the 2015 season figures are being used when the cars were free from issues this let's not forget being policed by Hughes himself and I think are quite accurate in terms of qualifying times, the races themselves you either leave to Hughes or are then just left to long subjective arguments with Alonso's penchant for retiring healthy cars when running both out of the points and behind Button, but I digress a bit.

Rosberg was in a lose/lose situation with Schumacher everyone thought that Rosberg would get smashed, when initially the opposite happened then Schumacher got written off as being too old and Rosberg got no credit.

We can see using Hamilton as a constant then Button and Rosberg were quite closely matched althoughthey had different strengths, I would edge it to Rosberg because qualifying is such a big advantage to have.

If you want to throw Trulli in the mix who I think was weaker anyway, he was terrible in the wet for instance, then Alonso has 4 years of Trulli and Button whilst Hamilton has 7 years of Rosberg and Button.

I know you've already conceded that Hamilton has had tougher teammates, I just thought I would extrapolate a bit more.

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

0.15s is basically the difference between Ricciardo and Vettel which lead to Vettel getting beat quite convincingly, the 2016 difference was 0.14s if you combine the 2 seasons it is less than that, if you say only one third of the 2015 season was used in comparison to the 2016 season then the difference is 0.1s for the 2 seasons combined average, this compares with 0.29s averaged difference between Hamilton and Button so again saying that Hamilton was just slightly better than Alonso is not true.

Also like I said before this seems to be the case that all the 2015 data basically gets thrown out as if Button merely got lucky in what qualifying sessions both cars were healthy otherwise Alonso would surely have come out on top if it had been other qualifying sessions were both cars are healthy.

If we except Hughes data as being gospel Hamilton didn't do slightly better against Button in respect to Alonso he did much better than Alonso and that's with only using the 2016 figures, the 2015 reliability issues I see often being used as an overview of the 2015 season but this wasn't always the case and there was usable data to gather, certainly Hughes thought this as well as we can see he's very thorough about all things being equal for the drivers.

In respect to Button and Hamilton, how long is Button classed as the newbie, the 2010 difference is virtually the same as the 2010-2013 averaged difference to 0.003s, the beating of Button season to season was very consistent.

Looking further you can see that apart from Hamilton, Button was by far the strongest teammate that Alonso has had and this highlights that generally speaking Hamilton has had stronger teammates than Alonso and I would stretch that to Vettel as well.

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

0.15s or 0.15% is a relatively big difference in F1 terms and again the 2015 season figures are being used when the cars were free from issues this let's not forget being policed by Hughes himself and I think are quite accurate in terms of qualifying times, the races themselves you either leave to Hughes or are then just left to long subjective arguments with Alonso's penchant for retiring healthy cars when running both out of the points and behind Button, but I digress a bit.

Rosberg was in a lose/lose situation with Schumacher everyone thought that Rosberg would get smashed, when initially the opposite happened then Schumacher got written off as being too old and Rosberg got no credit.

We can see using Hamilton as a constant then Button and Rosberg were quite closely matched althoughthey had different strengths, I would edge it to Rosberg because qualifying is such a big advantage to have.

If you want to throw Trulli in the mix who I think was weaker anyway, he was terrible in the wet for instance, then Alonso has 4 years of Trulli and Button whilst Hamilton has 7 years of Rosberg and Button.

I know you've already conceded that Hamilton has had tougher teammates, I just thought I would extrapolate a bit more.

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

0.15s is basically the difference between Ricciardo and Vettel which lead to Vettel getting beat quite convincingly, the 2016 difference was 0.14s if you combine the 2 seasons it is less than that, if you say only one third of the 2015 season was used in comparison to the 2016 season then the difference is 0.1s for the 2 seasons combined average, this compares with 0.29s averaged difference between Hamilton and Button so again saying that Hamilton was just slightly better than Alonso is not true.

Also like I said before this seems to be the case that all the 2015 data basically gets thrown out as if Button merely got lucky in what qualifying sessions both cars were healthy otherwise Alonso would surely have come out on top if it had been other qualifying sessions were both cars are healthy.

You can call the difference whatever you want, I'm happy enough to describe a few percent difference as slightly better based on Hughes results. I can't just ignore the context the numbers miss and pretend it's a perfect comparison overall. Lewis had over twice the amount of counted sessions to assert himself over Button, in a better car and was the incumbent driver. Yes I feel 0.15% in this context is slightly better but you can call it what you want, you can drop the slightly if it bothers you.

You don't have to throw out 2015, it's just some context that it wasn't a normal season reliability wise and we only got 7 comparable results in an entire season. You could make any result you wish by picking 7 results in any other battle. I can make Dan beat Max last year 7-0 with a gap of a couple of percent. Does that reflect what we saw when all results were counted?

It's just common sense to have an asterisk next to it but you seem to be converted to Hughes numbers now so you accept Alonso was quicker than Lewis in 2007 I assume?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I think slightly better is still fair for a 3.7% difference in races and about a 0.150% in qualifying isn't it? Hughes used 7 comparable race weekends for 2015. A third of the season, poker, lets not pretend they were in anything like a normal season there. Alonso was usually ahead every way you cut it so there is only 1 guy getting hurt when you have to toss out 2 thirds of the results.

I think both Trulli and Button were tough, hard to split which was tougher as he was facing them at different points of his and their career but I think either getting the nod would be fine.

I'd agree Lewis has had tougher team mates although Nico's decision to retire still leaves question marks about him as he was always in cars too far away from the other big guns to get a good read on him. His rep comes from beating Schumacher in his 40's and causing more trouble to Lewis than people thought while still generally getting beat, sometimes very badly. Was he a Hulk that got Schumi and a Merc at the right time or was he another Button but with his best skills coming on a Saturday instead, it's quite hard to say for definite but with him and Bottas thrown in with Kova I'd agree.

Seb, no chance. Hamilton,Button,Trulli,Raikkonen,Massa,Vandoorne and Fisi are more impressive than Dan,Raikkonen and Webber. Alonso's closer to Lewis team mate wise than he is to Seb but I accept this will likely rely on Vandoorne delivering on his potential.

0.15s or 0.15% is a relatively big difference in F1 terms and again the 2015 season figures are being used when the cars were free from issues this let's not forget being policed by Hughes himself and I think are quite accurate in terms of qualifying times, the races themselves you either leave to Hughes or are then just left to long subjective arguments with Alonso's penchant for retiring healthy cars when running both out of the points and behind Button, but I digress a bit.

Rosberg was in a lose/lose situation with Schumacher everyone thought that Rosberg would get smashed, when initially the opposite happened then Schumacher got written off as being too old and Rosberg got no credit.

We can see using Hamilton as a constant then Button and Rosberg were quite closely matched althoughthey had different strengths, I would edge it to Rosberg because qualifying is such a big advantage to have.

If you want to throw Trulli in the mix who I think was weaker anyway, he was terrible in the wet for instance, then Alonso has 4 years of Trulli and Button whilst Hamilton has 7 years of Rosberg and Button.

I know you've already conceded that Hamilton has had tougher teammates, I just thought I would extrapolate a bit more.

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

0.15s is basically the difference between Ricciardo and Vettel which lead to Vettel getting beat quite convincingly, the 2016 difference was 0.14s if you combine the 2 seasons it is less than that, if you say only one third of the 2015 season was used in comparison to the 2016 season then the difference is 0.1s for the 2 seasons combined average, this compares with 0.29s averaged difference between Hamilton and Button so again saying that Hamilton was just slightly better than Alonso is not true.

Also like I said before this seems to be the case that all the 2015 data basically gets thrown out as if Button merely got lucky in what qualifying sessions both cars were healthy otherwise Alonso would surely have come out on top if it had been other qualifying sessions were both cars are healthy.

You can call the difference whatever you want, I'm happy enough to describe a few percent difference as slightly better based on Hughes results. I can't just ignore the context the numbers miss and pretend it's a perfect comparison overall. Lewis had over twice the amount of counted sessions to assert himself over Button, in a better car and was the incumbent driver. Yes I feel 0.15% in this context is slightly better but you can call it what you want, you can drop the slightly if it bothers you.

You don't have to throw out 2015, it's just some context that it wasn't a normal season reliability wise and we only got 7 comparable results in an entire season. You could make any result you wish by picking 7 results in any other battle. I can make Dan beat Max last year 7-0 with a gap of a couple of percent. Does that reflect what we saw when all results were counted?

It's just common sense to have an asterisk next to it but you seem to be converted to Hughes numbers now so you accept Alonso was quicker than Lewis in 2007 I assume?

It's sort of strange that Hamilton has the advantage because he has more counted sessions over Button than Alonso but we are wanting to not count the 2015 season which would then give even less counted sessions for Alonso for no other reason as far as I can see because it's less favourable to Alonso?

Regarding the different systems I only started doing it because no one else was in the printed press only to discover now that Hughes has been doing it all along, his methodology obviously must be slightly different from mine but seeing what I do is easily dismissed for Hughes' version which people seemingly are more accepting of then I am now discussing Hughes' version, both versions favour Hamilton over multiple years though.

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers.

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

0.15s is basically the difference between Ricciardo and Vettel which lead to Vettel getting beat quite convincingly, the 2016 difference was 0.14s if you combine the 2 seasons it is less than that, if you say only one third of the 2015 season was used in comparison to the 2016 season then the difference is 0.1s for the 2 seasons combined average, this compares with 0.29s averaged difference between Hamilton and Button so again saying that Hamilton was just slightly better than Alonso is not true.

Also like I said before this seems to be the case that all the 2015 data basically gets thrown out as if Button merely got lucky in what qualifying sessions both cars were healthy otherwise Alonso would surely have come out on top if it had been other qualifying sessions were both cars are healthy.

You can call the difference whatever you want, I'm happy enough to describe a few percent difference as slightly better based on Hughes results. I can't just ignore the context the numbers miss and pretend it's a perfect comparison overall. Lewis had over twice the amount of counted sessions to assert himself over Button, in a better car and was the incumbent driver. Yes I feel 0.15% in this context is slightly better but you can call it what you want, you can drop the slightly if it bothers you.

You don't have to throw out 2015, it's just some context that it wasn't a normal season reliability wise and we only got 7 comparable results in an entire season. You could make any result you wish by picking 7 results in any other battle. I can make Dan beat Max last year 7-0 with a gap of a couple of percent. Does that reflect what we saw when all results were counted?

It's just common sense to have an asterisk next to it but you seem to be converted to Hughes numbers now so you accept Alonso was quicker than Lewis in 2007 I assume?

It's sort of strange that Hamilton has the advantage because he has more counted sessions over Button than Alonso but we are wanting to not count the 2015 season which would then give even less counted sessions for Alonso for no other reason as far as I can see because it's less favourable to Alonso?

Regarding the different systems I only started doing it because no one else was in the printed press only to discover now that Hughes has been doing it all along, his methodology obviously must be slightly different from mine but seeing what I do is easily dismissed for Hughes' version which people seemingly are more accepting of then I am now discussing Hughes' version, both versions favour Hamilton over multiple years though.

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers.

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Leaving the completely unproven and daft conspiracy theories about Alonso retiring healthy cars aside, I still think 0.15% is pretty slight, it's the same difference between 2015 and 2016 for JB-Alo when we got so many more results to count. I don't doubt Hughes's figures btw, I'm pointing out if you have to throw out 2 thirds of all results like in 2015 you aren't going to get as accurate a qualifying picture as you would in any normal season. We've been through this on another thread but if you randomly select 7 results from any JB-Lewis year, you do understand you can get quite a number of different results,right?And you'd get some that make JB look a lot closer than he really was when all the results were counted.

Yeah it was a no win situation for Nico against Michael,agree. Bit worrying Schumacher got closer rather than further away during their time though.

Nico sucked in the wet too tbf and Saturday would be very close but I'd give Nico the edge over him yeah. Trulli in that Mercedes with constant front row starts and only a race to T1, wins dozens of races and if he gets the same luck, then likely a title too. I think Nico's biggest strength over Trulli would be mental strength. We've seen Trulli implode a little like after things like France 04 whereas Nico showed great mental strength to keep coming back against Lewis so gets the nod from me for that alone.

0.15s is basically the difference between Ricciardo and Vettel which lead to Vettel getting beat quite convincingly, the 2016 difference was 0.14s if you combine the 2 seasons it is less than that, if you say only one third of the 2015 season was used in comparison to the 2016 season then the difference is 0.1s for the 2 seasons combined average, this compares with 0.29s averaged difference between Hamilton and Button so again saying that Hamilton was just slightly better than Alonso is not true.

Also like I said before this seems to be the case that all the 2015 data basically gets thrown out as if Button merely got lucky in what qualifying sessions both cars were healthy otherwise Alonso would surely have come out on top if it had been other qualifying sessions were both cars are healthy.

You can call the difference whatever you want, I'm happy enough to describe a few percent difference as slightly better based on Hughes results. I can't just ignore the context the numbers miss and pretend it's a perfect comparison overall. Lewis had over twice the amount of counted sessions to assert himself over Button, in a better car and was the incumbent driver. Yes I feel 0.15% in this context is slightly better but you can call it what you want, you can drop the slightly if it bothers you.

You don't have to throw out 2015, it's just some context that it wasn't a normal season reliability wise and we only got 7 comparable results in an entire season. You could make any result you wish by picking 7 results in any other battle. I can make Dan beat Max last year 7-0 with a gap of a couple of percent. Does that reflect what we saw when all results were counted?

It's just common sense to have an asterisk next to it but you seem to be converted to Hughes numbers now so you accept Alonso was quicker than Lewis in 2007 I assume?

It's sort of strange that Hamilton has the advantage because he has more counted sessions over Button than Alonso but we are wanting to not count the 2015 season which would then give even less counted sessions for Alonso for no other reason as far as I can see because it's less favourable to Alonso?

Regarding the different systems I only started doing it because no one else was in the printed press only to discover now that Hughes has been doing it all along, his methodology obviously must be slightly different from mine but seeing what I do is easily dismissed for Hughes' version which people seemingly are more accepting of then I am now discussing Hughes' version, both versions favour Hamilton over multiple years though.

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers.

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

You deal with the data that is available, you seem to be making a case for all the data that can't be used in 2015 as a negative for Alonso that he would have been default quicker, you just can't assume that, using data from both 2015 and 2016 is far better than just using the data from 2016, the more data the better.

I believed I talked about the 2007 season almost to the nth degree, it's obvious that Hughes carries more weight than I do so to a point it became pointless, I didn't realise that discussing the Button data was somewhat taboo?

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

You deal with the data that is available, you seem to be making a case for all the data that can't be used in 2015 as a negative for Alonso that he would have been default quicker, you just can't assume that, using data from both 2015 and 2016 is far better than just using the data from 2016, the more data the better.

I believed I talked about the 2007 season almost to the nth degree, it's obvious that Hughes carries more weight than I do so to a point it became pointless, I didn't realise that discussing the Button data was somewhat taboo?

You've lost me with the last sentence.

Again, I'm not asking you to ignore any data. If you're the guy that's usually ahead, then if you throw out the majority of results then of course that hurts that guy more. I'm not sure what your problem is here but I told you at the start I was happy to go with Hughes data anyway.

It isn't taboo at all. I'm asking about 2007 because you've gone from doubting his figures in one instance, to taking offence at me for using the word slightly in a comparison based on some other figures from the same guy in the same article. What is it you want from me here?

That sentence was in response to this randomly arrogant sentence you felt the need to send my way where you seem to think Hughes has validated your own work for some reason...

Quote:

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I'm not going far enough in my agreement with poker that Lewis did better against JB than Alonso did, based on figures from a source poker disagrees with in the first place.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

You deal with the data that is available, you seem to be making a case for all the data that can't be used in 2015 as a negative for Alonso that he would have been default quicker, you just can't assume that, using data from both 2015 and 2016 is far better than just using the data from 2016, the more data the better.

I believed I talked about the 2007 season almost to the nth degree, it's obvious that Hughes carries more weight than I do so to a point it became pointless, I didn't realise that discussing the Button data was somewhat taboo?

You've lost me with the last sentence.

Again, I'm not asking you to ignore any data. If you're the guy that's usually ahead, then if you throw out the majority of results then of course that hurts that guy more. I'm not sure what your problem is here but I told you at the start I was happy to go with Hughes data anyway.

It isn't taboo at all. I'm asking about 2007 because you've gone from doubting his figures in one instance, to taking offence at me for using the word slightly in a comparison based on some other figures from the same guy in the same article. What is it you want from me here?

That sentence was in response to this randomly arrogant sentence you felt the need to send my way where you seem to think Hughes has validated your own work for some reason...

Quote:

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers

Alonso wasn't usually ahead in 2015 qualifying.

In 2007 I was querying his methodology, Hughes has come forward and said that he asked the teams themselves about the qualifying fuel loads, so he's on the front line whilst I'm sat in my armchair, he obviously has more credibility, so with that in mind I moved forward to discuss other years, strange you view that as a validation of my own work?

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

You deal with the data that is available, you seem to be making a case for all the data that can't be used in 2015 as a negative for Alonso that he would have been default quicker, you just can't assume that, using data from both 2015 and 2016 is far better than just using the data from 2016, the more data the better.

I believed I talked about the 2007 season almost to the nth degree, it's obvious that Hughes carries more weight than I do so to a point it became pointless, I didn't realise that discussing the Button data was somewhat taboo?

You've lost me with the last sentence.

Again, I'm not asking you to ignore any data. If you're the guy that's usually ahead, then if you throw out the majority of results then of course that hurts that guy more. I'm not sure what your problem is here but I told you at the start I was happy to go with Hughes data anyway.

It isn't taboo at all. I'm asking about 2007 because you've gone from doubting his figures in one instance, to taking offence at me for using the word slightly in a comparison based on some other figures from the same guy in the same article. What is it you want from me here?

That sentence was in response to this randomly arrogant sentence you felt the need to send my way where you seem to think Hughes has validated your own work for some reason...

Quote:

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers

Alonso wasn't usually ahead in 2015 qualifying.

In 2007 I was querying his methodology, Hughes has come forward and said that he asked the teams themselves about the qualifying fuel loads, so he's on the front line whilst I'm sat in my armchair, he obviously has more credibility, so with that in mind I moved forward to discuss other years, strange you view that as a validation of my own work?

He was, he won 4-3 by my reckoning of Hughes stated 7 comparable results although he doesn't specify which ones they were. It's the time difference between them in percentage form where Hughes can't split them. The only 7 comparable results I can get using Hughes's stated methodology is Alonso 4 (Spn,GB,Sing and US) and Button 3 (Mal,Chn and Monaco). Maybe I've messed up but all the rest seem to contain things he'd rule out while those 7 contain runs that can be classed as "clean". Without knowing his specifics it's hard to say for sure though of course. I actually had 12 clean results iirc (Alonso 7-5 Button) so it highlights what some find fair runs in quali, others don't.

It just seems strange to disagree with some numbers from the article but get the hump with me for not giving enough praise in a comparison based on other numbers from the same article. Not sure what you mean with the validation bit though?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Eh,I said I was happy to go by Hughes numbers, so you can count 2015, I do. I'm talking about context, I'm pointing out we had to throw out 2 thirds of results which isn't a normal season is it and can obviously skew results from that one specific year, as it would in any other quali battle if you threw out the majority of the results so its worth bearing in mind(Or an asterisk or whatever you want to call it). My problem is we didn't have enough counted sessions from 2015, not that I'm wanting to get rid of the 1 third we did actually get counted.

So, no you don't agree with him about 2007 but you like using the Button comparison so you want to talk about that instead. That about right?

He's been in touch with you to congratulate you on your system that disagree with his own, has he? That's pretty cool...

You deal with the data that is available, you seem to be making a case for all the data that can't be used in 2015 as a negative for Alonso that he would have been default quicker, you just can't assume that, using data from both 2015 and 2016 is far better than just using the data from 2016, the more data the better.

I believed I talked about the 2007 season almost to the nth degree, it's obvious that Hughes carries more weight than I do so to a point it became pointless, I didn't realise that discussing the Button data was somewhat taboo?

You've lost me with the last sentence.

Again, I'm not asking you to ignore any data. If you're the guy that's usually ahead, then if you throw out the majority of results then of course that hurts that guy more. I'm not sure what your problem is here but I told you at the start I was happy to go with Hughes data anyway.

It isn't taboo at all. I'm asking about 2007 because you've gone from doubting his figures in one instance, to taking offence at me for using the word slightly in a comparison based on some other figures from the same guy in the same article. What is it you want from me here?

That sentence was in response to this randomly arrogant sentence you felt the need to send my way where you seem to think Hughes has validated your own work for some reason...

Quote:

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers

Alonso wasn't usually ahead in 2015 qualifying.

In 2007 I was querying his methodology, Hughes has come forward and said that he asked the teams themselves about the qualifying fuel loads, so he's on the front line whilst I'm sat in my armchair, he obviously has more credibility, so with that in mind I moved forward to discuss other years, strange you view that as a validation of my own work?

He was, he won 4-3 by my reckoning of Hughes stated 7 comparable results although he doesn't specify which ones they were. It's the time difference between them in percentage form where Hughes can't split them. The only 7 comparable results I can get using Hughes's stated methodology is Alonso 4 (Spn,GB,Sing and US) and Button 3 (Mal,Chn and Monaco). Maybe I've messed up but all the rest seem to contain things he'd rule out while those 7 contain runs that can be classed as "clean". Without knowing his specifics it's hard to say for sure though of course. I actually had 12 clean results iirc (Alonso 7-5 Button) so it highlights what some find fair runs in quali, others don't.

It just seems strange to disagree with some numbers from the article but get the hump with me for not giving enough praise in a comparison based on other numbers from the same article. Not sure what you mean with the validation bit though?

I had it 5-4 Button, you're guessing Hughes had it 4-3 to Alonso and even given that it doesn't make Alonso the default quicker driver for any missing sessions.

I've gone past discussing the 2007 season and gone onto other seasons, you mentioned me thinking that Hughes was validating my work.

Again, I'm not asking you to ignore any data. If you're the guy that's usually ahead, then if you throw out the majority of results then of course that hurts that guy more. I'm not sure what your problem is here but I told you at the start I was happy to go with Hughes data anyway.

It isn't taboo at all. I'm asking about 2007 because you've gone from doubting his figures in one instance, to taking offence at me for using the word slightly in a comparison based on some other figures from the same guy in the same article. What is it you want from me here?

That sentence was in response to this randomly arrogant sentence you felt the need to send my way where you seem to think Hughes has validated your own work for some reason...

Quote:

You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers

Alonso wasn't usually ahead in 2015 qualifying.

In 2007 I was querying his methodology, Hughes has come forward and said that he asked the teams themselves about the qualifying fuel loads, so he's on the front line whilst I'm sat in my armchair, he obviously has more credibility, so with that in mind I moved forward to discuss other years, strange you view that as a validation of my own work?

He was, he won 4-3 by my reckoning of Hughes stated 7 comparable results although he doesn't specify which ones they were. It's the time difference between them in percentage form where Hughes can't split them. The only 7 comparable results I can get using Hughes's stated methodology is Alonso 4 (Spn,GB,Sing and US) and Button 3 (Mal,Chn and Monaco). Maybe I've messed up but all the rest seem to contain things he'd rule out while those 7 contain runs that can be classed as "clean". Without knowing his specifics it's hard to say for sure though of course. I actually had 12 clean results iirc (Alonso 7-5 Button) so it highlights what some find fair runs in quali, others don't.

It just seems strange to disagree with some numbers from the article but get the hump with me for not giving enough praise in a comparison based on other numbers from the same article. Not sure what you mean with the validation bit though?

I had it 5-4 Button, you're guessing Hughes had it 4-3 to Alonso and even given that it doesn't make Alonso the default quicker driver for any missing sessions.

I've gone past discussing the 2007 season and gone onto other seasons, you mentioned me thinking that Hughes was validating my work.

So you don't even agree with his numbers with the Button example either? WTF?. So what are we even discussing then? That numbers you don't even agree with make Lewis look better against JB than Alonso? What a fascinating insight that is and well worth everyone's time.

Well isn't that what this sentence from you was implying...

"You know such systems as mine I have seen ridiculed but it's interesting that such a respected journalist as Hughes sees such merit in such systems when evaluating drivers"

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967